jffriesen

I don't get people who criticize a movie adaptation because it didn't present a literal recreation of a book they liked. Adaptations are things in themselves that evolve from the need to fit ideas, characters, commentary, internal dialogue and spoken dialogue and more into a different medium with many constraints, not the least of which may be budget.

The only movie I know that almost completely follows the book is the Maltese Falcon -- good book, good movie. One of my favourite books, Catch 22, could never become a movie that way, and yet I have enjoyed both the movie and the short TV series based on it.

The same with Monkey Beach, a book I've read and loved at least three times. But I don't know how you could ever put the literal book on screen. And so I dropped my preconceptions about what it 'should be' and simply watched the movie -- and was mesmerized.

I loved the cinematography, I loved the music and soundtrack and the non-linearity of the storytelling. I found the movie both funny and moving and was knocked out by how good the acting was. I'm not a huge fan of Adam Beach, but he was perfect for the role of Uncle Mick. Glen Gould perfectly portrayed Josh, a traumatized man lashing out at everyone around him. I loved Mama-oo, and young Lisa and can't say enough good things about how right Grace Dove was carrying Lisa's story to its bitter-sweet conclusion.

What can I say? A movie adaptation is like an impressionist painting -- it's not a photograph, it's an experience and a feeling and I'm feeling very good about Ms. Todd's impression of Monkey Beach.